Hello! And, err... our appeal was dismissed :-(

[garrymartin]

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.

 

 

[goodbyegti]

Sorry to hear that and good luck! Great info eg. use of Strava! Thanks for sharing.

[joe90]

Hi Garry, so sorry to hear of  this refusal and good for you for not giving in. Yes all these bl@@dy politicians talk of building more houses and changing planning rules but they still stop people like yourselves doing the right thing. 🤷‍♂️

[Alan Ambrose]

Commiserations from here, that’s tough. I’m impressed by your careful analysis of the situation. And it looks a lovely plot.

 

From my point of view, the planning system is increasingly capricious - each set of new rules just provides a bunch of new reasons to turn down applications. And we have some dreadful quality dwellings in this country and desperately need high quality buildings to be built.

 

I hope you have the time and energy to continue with your quest.

[Dave Jones]

did you use planning consultants to prepare both the applications and the appeal or DIY it ?

[MikeSharp01]

Very upsetting it must be. Lovely part of the world, hope you find it in you to keep going.

[garrymartin]

1 hour ago, Dave Jones said:

did you use planning consultants to prepare both the applications and the appeal or DIY it ?

 

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.

[Alan Ambrose]

Jeez - "sustainable travel" doesn't include an electric car? You can bet the planners all drive to work (when they go into the office) from their pretty country cottages. Pretty much impossible to function as an economic element in the countryside without a car.

[joe90]

18 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

To be honest, the *only* reason for refusal related to sustainable travel

 

16 hours ago, garrymartin said:

I included extensive information about the cycling options available from the plot.

16 hours ago, garrymartin said:

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 

What else could you possibly do to be sustainable??? FFS. This makes me very cross. Jobs worth springs to mind. I would want them to tell you WHAT you can do to make it sustainable 🤷‍♂️

Edited June 30 by joe90

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> 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.

 

You are rightly treating this as a logical exercise with rules, regulations, standards, arguments, precedents etc. The cynical part of me suggests that 'sustainable travel' is just an excuse to do what the planners want - which is to discourage development in some circumstances. My LPA often uses the words 'amenity' and/or 'environment' regularly as justifications for their decisions without bothering to explain which aspect of amenity or environment they mean - and they have 3 or 4 definitions of each in their local plan. That is, they use these fuzzy words to 'justify' what they want - at least to themselves. Maybe Labour will change things around a little and some of that might work in your favour - at least they say they will re-write the NPPF.

[joe90]

14 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

The cynical part of me suggests that 'sustainable travel' is just an excuse to do what the planners want

I would agree but the appeal officers are not local planners, my appeal decision slated the local planners for not following their own guidelines. I still say the planners/appeal officers should state what they require to make it “sustainable”. 

[Dave Jones]

may be worth employing a planning professional to submit a new application with an eye to appeal.

 

 

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> the appeal officers are not local planners

 

Of course, but I am disabused by the notion that they're a set of superior professionals with excellent planning judgement. To my mind they're just another bunch of people with random opinions. Of course, they represent 'the establishment' and I suspect they feel that unless the evidence is so pressing they risk they High Court, then they'll support the LPAs, who are also 'the establishment'.

 

Just download a dozen or so appeal judgements as see for yourself. Or read:

 

 

Edited June 30 by Alan Ambrose

[joe90]

Well I found the appeals process and outcome fair for my build, they backed my arguments, I can only speak as I find. 

[garrymartin]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

I would agree but the appeal officers are not local planners, my appeal decision slated the local planners for not following their own guidelines. I still say the planners/appeal officers should state what they require to make it “sustainable”. 

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. ☹️

 

 

[garrymartin]

1 hour ago, Dave Jones said:

may be worth employing a planning professional to submit a new application with an eye to appeal.

 

 

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.

[joe90]

1 minute ago, garrymartin said:

So I do think I got a particularly harsh Inspector on maybe a bad day

I agree. Is it worth going back to the LPA and asking what they would accept (I know many won’t do this but it’s got to be worth asking 🤷‍♂️).

[garrymartin]

2 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

The cynical part of me suggests that 'sustainable travel' is just an excuse to do what the planners want - which is to discourage development in some circumstances.

 

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.

[garrymartin]

6 minutes ago, joe90 said:

I agree. Is it worth going back to the LPA and asking what they would accept (I know many won’t do this but it’s got to be worth asking 🤷‍♂️).

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.

[joe90]

4 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

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.

Quite….however it might be worth engaging a planning consultant who has dealt with similar situations before.

[garrymartin]

4 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Quite….however it might be worth engaging a planning consultant who has dealt with similar situations before.

Probably. I am wary as I can clearly see evidence of good and bad consultants, and it's often not clear who, in a particular consultancy, is responsible for various responses. I'll maybe interview some when my plan moves forward a little.

 

I already have previous appeals as reference that specifically mention "Significant" in the context of rural development and sustainable transport; example, for 20 residential dwellings (in 2022) - "In addition to the above, I would add that Paragraph 105 of the Framework states that 'significant development should be focussed on locations which are or can be made sustainable' and 'opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making'. In my judgement, the proposal does not quite meet the threshold for being 'significant' development..."

 

So 20 residential dwellings doesn't meet the threshold for 'significant' according to that Inspector. This is the problem, they're applying their own judgement and so you can't get consistency and can only challenge an appeal on the grounds of law, not of judgement.

 

[garrymartin]

Incidentally, I did actually point out that my appeal was not in relation to 'significant development' in my statement of case, but the Inspector seems to have disregarded it...

 

 

Oh, and did I mention my LPA can't demonstrate a 5-year housing supply... 😲

 

[Alan Ambrose]

>>>  I can clearly see evidence of good and bad consultants

 

Is one method to look at appeals in your area and see who gets the most wins?

 

@joe90 - I'm super pleased for you that your appeal worked. But it's probably not good to extrapolate from a single data point.

 

I've been slow to grasp this point myself, but is getting any new application booted to Planning Committee also a reasonable tactic?

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, Alan Ambrose said:

application booted to Planning Committee also a reasonable tactic?

Yes. I've had a few decisions go my way when councillors decide. They are people, influenced by the applicant's case.

But it may then go to appeal and be overturned back to the officer's original decision.

 

[Dave Jones]

1 hour ago, garrymartin said:

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.

 

employ a professional who knows crack.