Planning permission - land history

[Doctor Drivel]

Talk to the planners and mention PPS7, and that the building will be eco. They may be receptive. Some councils like to have icon eco homes about to say they are in with it.

[Andy Hall]

A secret masonic sign?

Oh that must make all the difference.

Do they wear shirts with curvy collars, loons and cheesecloth?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Go and talk to the planning ossifer.

If not already ossified.

They will be frank about the constraints they have to work to.

[Mark]

Trouble is we are a nation of "Not in my backyard", unless there is a sizeable financial gain in it. of course you are offering to build Eco friendly affordable housing out of the goodness of your heart, making a large profit by persuading the planning committee of this has not entered your head. You could try offering donating _All_ of your profit less what you originally paid for the _Agricultural land_ to a recognised charity. Not heard anyone try that one before.

-

[Andy Hall]

I have. Somebody tried it near me recently. Apparently excellent scheme. It didn't work.

There was nothing in it it politically or financially for the politicians and nothing in it career-wise for the jobsworths in the planning department.

None of the proposals were really vote, kudos or money winners. Self sacrifice on the part of the developer isn't interesting - it simply raises more suspicions that there must be a catch.

[Doctor Drivel]

Few know about PPS7 at all as it is so new. Most will say outside the local plan on greenfield land is a no, no. Because planners are quite thick. Line up the points of PPS7 and make sure the house is not intrusive to anyone. Get the parish council on your side if at all possible. Cajole the locals into the design - they may say yes. Say you add value to the village as you would use the services and school if there is one. It has to be eco and well designed and being remote it would be virtually autonomous. Have solar panels (visually eco), rainwater recycling (people think we don't have water in the UK when we can waste the stuff). The house has to be visually eco too - a local eco icon.

Once you have met all the basic PPS7 criteria, it is then just like any other planning application - it is the NIMBYs you have to fight then, as usual. But if remote, NIMBYs don't count and it is the green wellie tree hugger brigade you have to contend with. With it being so eco they are then largely negated.

Worth a shot and the land may only cost £5K, instead of £150-200K. You can then lay on the eco bit as you will not be paying silly money for land and then spend on the house.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, was the house visually advanced in looks and eco? Where they running the PPS7 route?

A visual eco house that is a local icon the planners like. It makes them and the council look green. Just one house can do that.

[Andy Hall]

Yes, and it was one of the main things that kyboshed the project.

Most people think that that is a type of battery.

No they don't. They simply want to advance their careers.

Nobody cares.

or the opposite.

[Doctor Drivel]

Well they should appeal and pick though the PPS7 in detail and tell them where is fits and where it should be accepted and any comment they have made contrary to PPS7.

Yep, and that may include getting an icon building built in the locale.

They do.

[Andy Hall]

Irrelevant because there were a tonne of objections and no support.

In this case it definitely doesn't. The local community quite rightly didn't want an eyesore built and there was no political support either in the form of planning committee members.

There was no support and in this area people are not interested in things that look like something for the sake of it.

[Doctor Drivel]

There you go. Poor design.

What must they look like?

[Andy Hall]

It may well have been. That wasn't the basis of the objections.

Who knows, who cares? It simply wasn't as proposed. There wasn't even discussion on a modified version. The developer gave up and went for a conventional design. That's still in process.

[Doctor Drivel]

If a building meets the criteria of PPS7 the objections have to have grounding, not just NIMBYism.

If it is proposed then it is proposed.

They didn't like the look of it then. It must have been a bad ugly design. A lot of planning is subjective. Not in-keeping means sweet FA in many cases. Most places do not have a local vernacular. A good lawyer at an appeal can wipe the floor with subjective NIMBYism.

The country's top planning lawyer is representing the developers, the Matalan company, on an appeal for this tower at Liverpool docks. It will be the the countrys most striking high building. It was turned down by one vote and in the appeal hearing the council lawyer said it was not "in-keeping". In a redundant dock area? The building is sail shaped so how "in-keeping" do they want it? The architectural press have been covering the case, and say that this week the appeal should go through.

If you meet all the points, the NIMBYs need a good case to stop something. The appeal usually sorts it out.

[Andy Hall]

Nobody cared about that as I told you.

That was about the size of it.

[oktopusinc]

Hmmm - I am not greedy - I currently rent and have to claim housing benefit (about a third) to meet the now astronomical rents. I keep having to shell out hundreds each time I have to move when your landlord decides he wants to sell the house. The housing benefit of course goes straigth to my landlord who is the final benificiary. I earn too much for social housing including so called affordable housing. I earn too little to qualify for a mortgage. The land is my fathers. I propose to build straw bale houses with rainwater harvesting, wind and solar power and possibly reed bed sewerage. A

All I want to achieve from the project is to build a house with a realisticly affordable mortgage. I believe the Govt should be providing affordable LAND so that people can build their own =A360,000 house - the current Govt =A360,00 house is just lining the pockets of the developers. I think I can provide affordable houses and give myself a leg up the ladder. It may be I will not qualify for any of the houses but I might make enough for the downpayment on a house. There is no hidden agenda - thanks for all your comments - it has certainly been interesting to read.

Andy Hall wrote:

[Doctor Drivel]

All I want to achieve from the project is to build a house with a realisticly affordable mortgage. I believe the Govt should be providing affordable LAND so that people can build their own £60,000 house - the current Govt £60,00 house is just lining the pockets of the developers. I think I can provide affordable houses and give myself a leg up the ladder. It may be I will not qualify for any of the houses but I might make enough for the downpayment on a house. There is no hidden agenda - thanks for all your comments - it has certainly been interesting to read.

[oktopusinc]