Isolated Houses in the Countryside

[ToughButterCup]

Mindful of the fact that there are a good few on BH who have yet to obtain planning permission, I'd like to draw attention to a well written synopsis of a recent judgement concerning isolated dwellings in the countryside. The author , Martin Goodall , has a particularly readable written style, it is well worth reading in full. 

 

The meaning of the word isolated is important, The LPA had challenged an Inspectors decision : he had allowed an appeal against the LPAs decision to refuse permission. The decision hinged in part on the interpretation of the term isolated. The LPA and Inspector understood the term to mean different things. The LPA took a more functional approach relying on map data, the Inspector sought to examine more than simple map evidence.

 

' ...Lindblom LJ’s observations on the boundaries of a settlement are particularly interesting, and clearly envisage a more flexible approach in this regard than the rigid adherence to designated settlement boundaries that LPAs commonly seem to adopt. ...'  (Goodhall 2018, downloaded April 2018) (Emphasis added)

 

I understand that locally (the Fylde Coast) appreciable numbers have been refused, at least in part, on the grounds of isolated development. 

To those affected, the article, and perhaps the full judgement (reference in the article) bears careful examination.

[Ferdinand]

Worth a read - an object lesson in grounding nebulous parts of Planning Law and how it develops under our traditions.

 

It is to do with the application of Paragraph 55, which is designed to allow exceptionally high quality houses to be built in the countryside where otherwise it would not have been allowed. Para 55 used to be known as the Selwyn-Gummer clause because it was introduced by John Selwyn-Gummer back in  1997.

 

Gummer was, and presumably is, a bit of a romantic with regard for gorgeousness in ritual, and for some things Victorian, a Tractarian with a reverence for Tradition and a habit of flounce, and didn’t want the tradition of the country house to die. I agree with him on this, and think that the small numbers  of isolated houses built since justify it by their quality. Blair slightly limited the clause by making eco-friendliness more of a requirement.

 

Under 100 houses have been permitted by this method in 20 years afaik, but nimbies sometimes hate the very idea.

 

An Introduction to paragraph 55 is here.

 

As I see it, the decision is about the interpretation of language used in one area of planning law to inform decisions in another area of planning law, which may soften the rigidity of Community Boundaries as applied in certain Planning decisions in similar-but-different exceptional developments eg of three houses.

 

F

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Ferdinand

[ToughButterCup]

28 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

[...]

the decision is about the interpretation of language used in one area of planning law to inform decisions in another area of planning law, which may soften the rigidity of Community Boundaries as applied in certain Planning decisions in similar-but-different exceptional developments

[...]

 

And the decision (judgement) focuses precisely on that issue.

The Learned Judges make the point that planning decisions should not be pernickety, seeking to parse every word.

 

' ... the court must avoid the mistake of treating the policy in question as if it had the force or linguistic precision of a statute – which it does not – and must bear in mind that broad statements of policy do not lend themselves to elaborate exegesis. ... '

 

which I see as a sensible decision. Very down to earth.  Further ;

 

' ....  Nor will [the court] engage in – or encourage – the dissection of an inspector’s planning assessment in the quest for such errors of law. Excessive legalism in the planning system is always to be deprecated. ...'

 

To use a risky term, the court appears to have delivered a healthy dose of common sense. And thus a chink of hope for those who have been frustrated  by LPA decision makers who take refuge in dissecting the meaning of key words - often to their perceived advantage. Take the word sustainable for example.

[joe90]

When I went to appeal for my build the inspector told the LPA that they were not even  abiding by their own policies!

[Temp]

We didn't need to go to appeal because we found written evidence the LPA had told a previous owner of the plot the exact opposite of what they had been telling us.

 

[ProDave]

It would be interesting in this particular case to see a map of where this development would be in relation to other houses. It seems to hinge on whether you consider it's location "isolated" or not.

 

Up here, there is a general presumption against new houses in the countryside unless in an established settlement. Ours got permission because it satisfies at least 2 of the requirements. But I know of one that was refused near here as although close to existing houses the LPA deemed it was "outwith" the area of the existing settlement.  I don't know if that ever went to appeal.

 

Some LA's do some ridiculous things.  When I was down south I was always looking for a plot (but never found one) but I recall looking at a map in a local plan. This was an existing village. They had outlined the village boundary in red saying there would be no development outside the boundary. But a look at the map showed some ridiculous things like a gap between 2 houses on the edge of the village, where another house would have fitted nicely, was specifically marked as "outside" the village.

[Olly P]

A useful read which is relative to our situation and  I will pass onto my planning consultant. Our plot is a field  on the edge of a settlement with dwellings opposite it,  sited between one dwelling and a agricultural building. We have had a pre planning app response earlier this year  which the planning officer has stated that he refers to the site as " rounding off or infill" but wouldn't support it as it is regarded as an isolated dwelling into open countryside, even though it would be aligned to the other buildings existing. That said, we are still pursuing and are applying for Outline PP early next month.  From watching other PP applications going through recently, it seems that the ones with no objections have an easier time going through and that the planning officers and committee members are prepared to be more receptive to developments on the edge of settlements. Next step for me I think is to knock on the neighbours doors with a bottle of wine... wish me luck!! 

[Temp]

How on earth can a plot be both infill and isolated? I think you stand a good chance of getting pp.

[bissoejosh]

Fascinating. Very similar to our version of events. We were dismissed at LPA level as being in open countryside due to being outside a settlement boundary. We appealed and the inspectorate found in our favour.

[le-cerveau]

13 hours ago, Olly P said:

We have had a pre planning app response earlier this year  which the planning officer has stated that he refers to the site as " rounding off or infill" but wouldn't support it as it is regarded as an isolated dwelling into open countryside, even though it would be aligned to the other buildings existing.

If you have this in writing I think you have them over a barrel!  They call it infill it can't be isolated (by their own words).

 

[Olly P]

1 hour ago, bissoejosh said:

Fascinating. Very similar to our version of events. We were dismissed at LPA level as being in open countryside due to being outside a settlement boundary. We appealed and the inspectorate found in our favour.

This is exactly what our planning officer has said in our Pre Planning App response!! 

[Olly P]

I will post a map of the land shortly 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Olly P
1

[Olly P]

[Temp]

I had a look on Google maps satellite view and the building south of the plot on your map looks like a car park. If there is a building there now take a look at the planning file for it. Ditto the Quaker lodge.

 

Have a look around for any other maps of the area. You might find it's within church, parish, village, conservation or less formal boundaries. Anything that shows it's included in more obviously developed area to the east of the lane adds to your ammunition.

 

 

 

[Olly P]

10 hours ago, Temp said:

I had a look on Google maps satellite view and the building south of the plot on your map looks like a car park. If there is a building there now take a look at the planning file for it. Ditto the Quaker lodge.

 

Have a look around for any other maps of the area. You might find it's within church, parish, village, conservation or less formal boundaries. Anything that shows it's included in more obviously developed area to the east of the lane adds to your ammunition.

 

 

 

Many thanks for your reply. The map on Google maps/earth is a very old one and the car park that was where the agri building is now was used by workers when the housing estate opposite was being developed. 

[Olly P]

Currently I am trying to find the settlement boundary that the Planning officer has stated my site is "out with". On my LPA/district interactive website it shows current and past Planning Applications, development boundaries, green gap areas, bus stops, postcode areas, parish councils  etc etc but no settlement boundaries are shown. If nothing is there How do the planning officers identify What is within  out with a settlement boundary? 

[Temp]

Mostly they make it up. They draw a mental line around the existing development. Some level of "smoothing" is applied, the don't always follow existing property boundaries exactly or there would never be any in fill plots. That's why other documented boundaries can sometimes help.