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

[Jilly]

I think they particularly like buses, and trains for sustainability. 

[garrymartin]

5 minutes ago, Jilly said:

I think they particularly like buses, and trains for sustainability. 

- 20A and 355 Bus Stops – 1.3km (0.8 miles) 

- Droitwich Spa Train Station – 2.6km (1.6 miles) 

 

 

Unfortunately, the Inspector commented "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." 

 

As far as I can tell, what the LPA Officer and the Inspector appear to be implying is that unless you can walk to a bus stop or to local services, it's not sustainable because people will prefer using a car.

[ToughButterCup]

27 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

....

Unfortunately, the Inspector commented "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." 

...

 

Without evidence, that is an outrageous comment to make. 

 

You are correct @garrymartin, the micropolitics of this application appears to be a confounding factor. You are also correct in pointing at the Catch22 factor: Sustainability . Who knows what it really means? 

 

I admire your attack,  I rarely read (here) of such a well-organised approach. Could I suggest that you :

 

+ wait a bit for the new regime to settle down;

+ smell the new policy coffee ;

+ employ a really switched on planner and;

+ reapply.

 

Reading between the lines, the LPA is grasping at straws. And has the Inspectorate in it's pocket. 

 

You need a well- connected professional who - in detail -knows the micropolitics of the area. 

 

Good luck.

 

[garrymartin]

4 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

I admire your attack,  I rarely read (here) of such a well-organised approach.

Thank you.

 

4 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Could I suggest that you :

 

+ wait a bit for the new regime to settle down;

+ smell the new policy coffee ;

+ employ a really switched on planner and;

+ reapply.

That's the plan, although I've also asked a few specific policy questions of the Head of Planning as a precursor so I am 100% clear on how the LPA would interpret some fundamental wording.

[ToughButterCup]

Well let's hope you get more than a Sir Humphrey response

[joe90]

2 hours ago, garrymartin said:

Unfortunately, the Inspector commented "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." 

That’s outrageous, with that attitude virtually no houses will be given planning permission in rural locations. 
 

 

2 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

I admire your attack,  I rarely read (here) of such a well-organised approach.

Ditto 

 

1 hour ago, garrymartin said:

I've also asked a few specific policy questions of the Head of Planning as a precursor so I am 100% clear on how the LPA would interpret some fundamental wording.

Very good idea. 👍

[Kelvin]

3 hours ago, garrymartin said:

 

 

As far as I can tell, what the LPA Officer and the Inspector appear to be implying is that unless you can walk to a bus stop or to local services, it's not sustainable because people will prefer using a car.

To some extent they are correct. Well they are clearly wrong insofar that they aren’t looking at the sustainability of the proposal

as a whole including using an EV. But people do prefer to use a car, particularly if you live rurally, even if car usage is reducing across the population. We live rurally and have two reasonably sized towns a few miles away in either direction. Both are relatively well connected to Dundee and Perth. I can drive to Dundee in 30 minutes. I’ve tried using public transport and it took 90 mins  door to door. I can drive to Edinburgh in about 90 mins but to use public transport it would take about 2.5 hours. 
 

I had a chat with the BCO about sustainability and rural living and he said that there is pressure on them not to approve houses in rural areas for similar reasons that you’re facing. They are also keen to see that people that live in the area also work in the area. But they don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which professional people are wfh so are, in fact, doing just what they want.  
 

As far as what might change if (when) labour get in. This will be a slow long drawn out process I expect. 

[Alan Ambrose]

Apolohies if I missed it, but what was the appeal turnaround from filing date to decision date?

[garrymartin]

26 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

But people do prefer to use a car, particularly if you live rurally, even if car usage is reducing across the population.

Agreed. It's a catch 22 though. Council removes funding for rural bus routes because the volume of users doesn't make them economically viable, in essence, then preventing development due to lack of sustainable transport choice.

 

Ironically, this is the wording in our Local Plan...

 

[garrymartin]

5 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Apolohies if I missed it, but what was the appeal turnaround from filing date to decision date?

The appeal was filed on 28 July 2023, and decided on 24 June 2024, so 10 months and 27 days.

[Kelvin]

Quite. The various policies and departments aren’t joined up. Like almost every other parts of Government. It suits the council not to approve rural builds and promote more urban development. If we all lived in towns and cities they could cut all the services to the rural areas. 

Edited July 1 by Kelvin

[joe90]

1 hour ago, garrymartin said:

It's a catch 22 though. Council removes funding for rural bus routes because the volume of users doesn't make them economically viable, in essence, then preventing development due to lack of sustainable transport choice.

So an argument that using your EV,S is more sustainable than public transport (ICE) and the fact that public transport is being rationed due to lack of council funding .🤷‍♂️

[garrymartin]

5 minutes ago, joe90 said:

So an argument that using your EV,S is more sustainable than public transport (ICE) and the fact that public transport is being rationed due to lack of council funding .🤷‍♂️

 

Seems you're not allowed to include an EV as a sustainable transport choice (despite ultra low and zero emission vehicles being listed as one of the five sustainable transport modes in the NPPF) as you can't force people to use one, and if you accepted that they were a sustainable transport choice, that would make *any* site sustainable. Can't force someone to use a bike either but cycling is accepted...

 

The whole point is that you do things to encourage use. Local policy says I *have* to include secure cycle storage in any development proposal to encourage the use of a bike. BRegs now require you to fit an electric car charger for the same reasons. My argument was that not only was I planning for two 22kW chargers, but that I'd also be generating more energy than the primary demand of the dwelling, and hence there were not only environmental incentives but also financial incentives to use an EV (and of course I'll owned and driven one for over 4 years). Deaf ears.

 

 

[Kelvin]

It’s mental. You’re told you have to fit these things but they are then not taking into account because you might sell the house to someone that doesn’t do any of the things you are doing like owning an EV. 

[garrymartin]

3 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

It’s mental. You’re told you have to fit these things but they are then not taking into account because you might sell the house to someone that doesn’t do any of the things you are doing like owning an EV. 

I think it's slightly worse than that because they are also arguing about the lack of control of choices of "future occupiers" in the context of a market housing development when, as a self-build, I *am* the future occupier!! 🤪

[IanR]

28 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

you can't force people to use one

 

14 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

 they are also arguing about the lack of control of choices of "future occupiers" 

 

New houses have an estimated lifespan of 60 years. I'm not sure how that's calculated as it seems short to me, so perhaps that's 60 years to a major renovation? 

There's an argument that the LPA should not just be considering transport today, but for the life of the house.

 

New car sales in the UK are currently 25% "Plug-in" (BEV + PHEV), ie. zero or ultra low emission. By 2035 that will effectively be 100% zero emission (Labour is talking about going back to 2030). Before 2050 there will effectively be no non-zero emission cars on UK roads. (yeah, I know there will be a few)

 

While you can't force future occupiers to move to zero or ultra-low vehicles the government is with national legislation and councils are accelerating that change with low emission zones and new properties are making that an easier change with driveways and chargers.

[garrymartin]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

There's an argument that the LPA should not just be considering transport today, but for the life of the house.

 

While you can't force future occupiers to move to zero or ultra-low vehicles the government is with national legislation and councils are accelerating that change with low emission zones and new properties are making that an easier change with driveways and chargers.

I'm with you 100%.

 

Also part of my appeal Statement of Case;

 

 

So my Local Authority themselves estimate that in less than six years, a third of the vehicles on their roads will be ultra low or zero emission.

 

When you also consider the location, size of plot, potential value of house to be built etc., the odds of any future occupants driving an old, dirty, petrol or diesel car start to drop quite considerably from a demographic perspective.

 

Whilst I'm frustrated that the Inspector seems to have disregarded much of the information I provided, it is nonetheless very heartening to have the support and bewilderment of the buildhub community to console me... 🤗❤️

[Kelvin]

If I’ve learnt anything these last few years it’s that there’s no consistency with the LPA across councils and even within the same council. Too many decisions are based on the opinion of an individual rather than the strict application of their planning guidelines. They are also underfunded which isn’t helping them. 

Edited July 1 by Kelvin

[joe90]

3 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Too many decisions are based on the opinion of an individual rather than the strict application of their planning guidelines.

As a case in point my appeal officer told the LPA they were not abiding by their own guidelines……

[ToughButterCup]

We ( SWMBO) and I are heavily into Artificial Intelligence at the moment - hence the citation below (ChatGPT4) . I'll run it through a more advanced AI soon as well.

 

Quote

Originating Question

Please give me a reference to the source for UK only documentation giving  the standards that ensure accessibility and  promote sustainable transportation.

 

Response

Certainly, here are key UK-specific documents and sources that provide standards and guidelines to ensure accessibility and promote sustainable transportation:

 

Transport for London (TfL) - "Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance":

This document provides detailed guidelines on the design and placement of bus stops to ensure they are accessible and promote the use of public transportation.

Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance
Department for Transport (DfT) - "Inclusive Mobility":

This guidance document offers detailed standards for ensuring that transportation infrastructure is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities.

https://www.buscentreofexcellence.org.uk/resources-collection/accessible-bus-stop-design-guidance

Inclusive Mobility
Department for Transport (DfT) - "Manual for Streets":

This manual provides comprehensive guidance on how to design, construct, adopt, and maintain residential streets in a way that fosters sustainable transport and accessibility.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61d32bb7d3bf7f1f72b5ffd2/inclusive-mobility-a-guide-to-best-practice-on-access-to-pedestrian-and-transport-infrastructure.pdf

 

Manual for Streets
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

The NPPF sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, including the promotion of sustainable transport and accessible environments.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e0035ed915d74e6223743/pdfmanforstreets.pdf

National Planning Policy Framework
Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) - "Planning for Walking":

This document provides guidance on creating pedestrian-friendly environments that support sustainable transportation options.
Planning for Walking

https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4465/planning_for_walking_-_long_-_april_2015.pdf

 

These sources provide detailed guidelines and standards specific to the UK, focusing on ensuring accessibility and promoting sustainable transportation within urban planning and development.

ChatGTP -4 under licence Downloaded July 2024

 

Using AI well involves an iterative process. I have a asked a very superficial question. It would be an idea to reformulate the question with ever-closer reference to your local situation Gary   I'd dearly love to delve deeply into this issue, but that might involve intrusion into your particular circumstance, and so be unwise.

I'll have a go with my property and circumstances, and then anonymise the results - and maybe publish that in another thread. 

[garrymartin]

5 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Using AI well involves an iterative process.

I work for a Global IT Service Provider so I've been using AI for some time, and even though I say it myself, I'm pretty good at working through questions and spotting the (sometimes) flawed responses. 😉

 

I have numerous references to the various documents in my Statement of Case. The problem is that they are often very much open to interpretation.

 

For example, the 5km distance that seems to be acceptable in relation to cycling is almost universally agreed upon and can't really be argued with.

 

However, as another example, the NPPF in Appendix 2: Glossary says the following;

 

 

So *any* efficient, safe and accessible means of transport, *including* those mentioned.

 

Paragraph 109 says the following;

 

So the second sentence *should* ONLY be applicable to "Significant development" and yet is universally applied almost always to ALL development.

 

Equally, if we just consider the five examples of sustainable transport modes from the Glossary, from an English language perspective, only providing one would not present a choice. But two (or more) presents a choice. So even if we accept the error of applying that to development that is not "Significant" I should only need to show I can meet at least two (which I do).

 

Even so, the application and appeal were refused solely on the grounds of sustainable transport... 😞

 

The issue is always that it is a planning judgement, that the rules are not binary, and hence, unfortunately, it very much depends on the views of the individual. I am 100% certain that had my Inspector been someone else, the result may have been different too.

 

If you @ToughButterCup or anyone else is interested in reviewing the various documents and offering any insight either here, or by personal message or email (if you think it is sensitive), I'm more than happy to send the links. 

[Bramco]

Issues like this are actually sorted out through people taking things to the next step, i.e. judicial review (think that's the term)

 

Judges, through case law, actually set the interpretation of what was meant by the people who drafted the legislation.

 

We used a case in our appeal on what the Green Belt legislation actually means - and won.

 

So, it begs the question a) are you willing to go to the next stage and b) is there anyone interested in taking up the case?

 

Simon

[SBMS]

1 minute ago, Bramco said:

Issues like this are actually sorted out through people taking things to the next step, i.e. judicial review (think that's the term)

 

Judges, through case law, actually set the interpretation of what was meant by the people who drafted the legislation.

 

We used a case in our appeal on what the Green Belt legislation actually means - and won.

 

So, it begs the question a) are you willing to go to the next stage and b) is there anyone interested in taking up the case?

 

Simon

I'd advise against judicial review and instead re-apply with a full matters application with a planning consultant assistance.  Judicial review won't look at the merits of your application, but whether there was a legal mistake made by the inspector - facts in law.  So you'd have to identify specifically what legal mistake was made, and even if you were successful at judicial review (£££), all that happens is that the inspector re-assesses taking that legal point from the high court.  So you'd have to specifically point to a specific error in law made by the inspector. Even then they might make the same decision.

[garrymartin]

3 minutes ago, SBMS said:

Judicial review won't look at the merits of your application, but whether there was a legal mistake made by the inspector - facts in law.

Exactly this. *VERY* expensive approach and they'll look at the various Acts and Written Ministerial Statements, and not specifically the NPPF which simply advises on how policy should be applied.

 

7 minutes ago, SBMS said:

re-apply with a full matters application with a planning consultant assistance

As mentioned previously, this is sort of the developing plan, albeit an outline application with some matters reserved and just covering access to keep the architect costs out of the equation until we have secured permission.

 

 

[Jilly]

1 hour ago, garrymartin said:

Exactly this. *VERY* expensive approach and they'll look at the various Acts and Written Ministerial Statements, and not specifically the NPPF which simply advises on how policy should be applied.

 

As mentioned previously, this is sort of the developing plan, albeit an outline application with some matters reserved and just covering access to keep the architect costs out of the equation until we have secured permission.

 

 

Counterintuitive, but my architect was instrumental in getting us planning permission.