Planning refused on Strawbale build

[AnnL]

A first post, so please bear with me. It's a long story but I'll keep it short and hope that someone can help or point in the right direction.

Have just had planning refused for a sustainable/carbon neutral, strawbale build on a small plot of land on Anglesey.

The grounds for refusal are:

- not being on the footprint of the derelict cottage (demolished) on the site. The plot was bought with PP for a modern bungalow which wasn't on the old footprint either but this seems to have been conveniently forgotten/ignored.

- being a new dwelling in the open countryside (this is a roadside plot which has been inhabited for at least 100yrs). It is on the edge of a small village not in the middle of rolling green fields.

- being an obtrusive feature in the landscape which is out of character with the existing pattern of development in the immediate vicinity (an earlier permission was granted for exactly the same dwelling closer to the roadside).

Our primary reason for needing to move the dwelling further into the plot was that we discovered fractured ground which would have meant using concrete pile foundations, totally contradicting our aim to build a house with as little impact on the environment as possible.

We've communicated at length in writing as no-one will discuss with us, stating Council policies and Welsh Assembly guidelines and policies re sustainable building ...all falling on deaf ears.

We will be appealing on those grounds but if anyone knows of any appeals where precedents have been set regarding any of the above, that would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you
AnnL

 

[jeds]

New houses in the countryside are normally only allowed where there are special circumstances. e.g. a house for an essential agricultural worker.

Do you have a special reason?

 

[AnnL]

Hi John

To explain a little further, We do have PP for the site but discovered the ground which we were going to build on was fractured which meant we needed to move it further into the plot where there's stable ground. If we don't, we'll be forced to use concrete for the foundations, something we're trying to avoid at all costs so that the build meets sustainability guidelines.

Planners were happy with the dwelling when it was closer to the road but are unhappy with in off the footprint of the old cottage.

I appreciate this is to comply with 'open countryside' policy, however, not only is the plot 'historical' and has a well defined, ancient perimeters on three sides and a minor road on the fourth which seems to contradict the 'open country' requirement, there seems to be zero element of "well, if you did this, or that" we'd consider it.

There is simply no discussion, no flexibility and no interest whatsoever in the carbon footprint of the build which is so terribly frustrating.

AnnL

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In the grand scheme of life, do you really think that saving the energy/resources used for your piles will make any difference?

 

[AnnL]

In the grand scheme of life, do you really think that saving the energy/resources used for your piles will make any difference?

No, of course not, not on its own.

But collectively, yes.
Someone has to set an example. I'm happy to do so.

AnnL

 

[jeds]

Building on a previous footprint brings the development into the category of replacement dwellings. The local plan makes allowances for replacement dwellings in the country side but it does not make allowances for new dwellings. Let's face it, that has to be a good thing. Otherwise everybody would want one and there'd be no countryside left. It's not a matter of negotiation. The local planning authority are only allowed to approve applications that are in accordance with the local plan.

I wonder why you think piling is worse than a standard foundation? I'm not convinced of that myself. And certainly piling would be much, much better than a trench fill foundation of, say, 1.5m deep or more - which is a very common type of foundation. Unless your new house would otherwise not have a foundation.

 

[digdilem]

You have to play their game and be prepared to compromise your ideals.

Read your local planning guide, find out exactly what rules they have to obey and tailor your intentions to fit them. If neccessary employ a *local* planning consultant. (I've used them and found them very useful - they know what's allowed, what has precedent, who's on the planning committee and how they like things presented)

I understand your frustration and it's far from rare, but they need to give you a valid reason to refuse your application even though it seems they would rather everything be fields, and that listed buildings collapse into ruins.

Prepare your appeal well and with as much clear and concise detail as you can. Again, your consultant will know what is expected.

 

[AnnL]

Building on a previous footprint brings the development into the category of replacement dwellings. The local plan makes allowances for replacement dwellings in the country side but it does not make allowances for new dwellings. Let's face it, that has to be a good thing. Otherwise everybody would want one and there'd be no countryside left. It's not a matter of negotiation. The local planning authority are only allowed to approve applications that are in accordance with the local plan.

I wonder why you think piling is worse than a standard foundation? I'm not convinced of that myself. And certainly piling would be much, much better than a trench fill foundation of, say, 1.5m deep or more - which is a very common type of foundation. Unless your new house would otherwise not have a foundation.

Jeds, as this is a load bearing strawbale construction there are NO foundations, in the common sense of the word. The foundations are compacted loose 'rock', which has a wooden ladder construction on top of it, then the bale walls. It works beautifully and eliminates the need for any concrete whatsoever in the build.

Oh believe me, I am getting very familiar with the Local Plan, and all the other flavours of Plan, and Guidelines and all the Welsh Assembly documentation.....

I agree, I certainly wouldn't want to see the countryside dotted with new builds but this small site ( it sits on a minor road with 3 well defined, original boundaries) has been inhabited fro well over 100 yrs! It's not bang in the middle of open countryside.

It's an uphill struggle to get planners to think outside the box but we're not giving up.

AL

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Please clarify as to whether your application meets the Local Plan guidelines and any other local or national policy guidelines or not?

 

[AnnL]

Please clarify as to whether your application meets the Local Plan guidelines and any other local or national policy guidelines or not?

Well, that's up for debate isn't it depending on which side you're on.

The Council say no but I would say it depends on definition of terms.

Local Plan guidelines surely need to be looked at in a wider context and in conjunction with things like the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Welsh Assembly Govs new document "One Wales, one planet, a new sustainable Scheme for Wales".

For instance; What is "Open Countryside". I have found various definitions, but the one I want to use (naturally) favours our needs. "Open farmland and fields that doesn't have the infrastructure nearby that is needed for development".

The plot under question sits within open fields but as I explained earlier, it's a 'historic' site that's been there for years. Does this impact on the definition? I would say "Yes, of course", the Council will argue "No, matters not a jot" (though, having said that Highways Dept reversed an access objection based on the historic element).

We could argue till we're blue in the face but if the planning officer assigned to your case says no, you really have no voice do you and common sense appears to have no bearing.

AL

 

[AnnL]

You have to play their game and be prepared to compromise your ideals.

Read your local planning guide, find out exactly what rules they have to obey and tailor your intentions to fit them. If neccessary employ a *local* planning consultant. (I've used them and found them very useful - they know what's allowed, what has precedent, who's on the planning committee and how they like things presented)

I understand your frustration and it's far from rare, but they need to give you a valid reason to refuse your application even though it seems they would rather everything be fields, and that listed buildings collapse into ruins.

Prepare your appeal well and with as much clear and concise detail as you can. Again, your consultant will know what is expected.

Ref your comment about using a planning consultant.
In your experience, are appeals handled by consultants more likely to be successful? I assume they are because they know the ropes and the jargon.

Unfortunately, money is limited, so we're trying to do as much as we can ourselves. I'm confident that I understand their objections and have answers for all of them. My fear however is that they'll continue to dig their heels in simply because that seems to be their remit.

Have looked at costs for using a consultant and it seems it can range from several hundred to well over £1,000.

Terribly sad to think a backhander or a word in someone's ear in the early stages is likely to avoided all this stress.

AL

 

[jeds]

The only definition that matters really is the local plan. The local plan should have a map showing the nearby settlement and should show the boundary of the settlement. Your land is either inside or outside.

If it's outside the boundary then the LPA can only approve developments which are specifically allowed by the plan. Somewhere in the plan will be a list of developments that are allowed. It will probably say something like; affordable housing on exception sites, agricultural related housing and replacement dwellings. Everything else is excluded.

The LPA can't make exceptions. Firstly they would be in trouble and secondly it would open the flood gates.

 

[AnnL]

The only definition that matters really is the local plan. The local plan should have a map showing the nearby settlement and should show the boundary of the settlement. Your land is either inside or outside.

If it's outside the boundary then the LPA can only approve developments which are specifically allowed by the plan. Somewhere in the plan will be a list of developments that are allowed. It will probably say something like; affordable housing on exception sites, agricultural related housing and replacement dwellings. Everything else is excluded.

The LPA can't make exceptions. Firstly they would be in trouble and secondly it would open the flood gates.

Yes, I recognise those exceptions. We are right on the boundary.

However, would you not agree that the earlier approval (PP permitted in 1999 on the same site, not on the old footprint) has no bearing on the current application?

I'm really trying to fathom out how a different decision can be made this time round and what strength it would give our case.

Likewise, the fact that the site has well defined boundaries and has been inhabited for over 100 yrs.

Does the LP overide everything else ... including common-sense?

AL

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If the Planners approve something not in accordance with the LP on your application other applicants will be able to use your case as a precedent. What did the LP from 12 years ago say?

 

[jeds]

It would have been a different local plan in 1999. Probably different rules or maybe different boundary.