The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: bluejules on November 20, 2012, 10:32:32 am
-
Hello there - just joined the forum and decided to jump in with both feet straight away with a complicated post on a topic that's driving me to distraction.
We started to rent a nine-acre smallholding from our neighbour on 10th October. We've got a CPH number and we've registered it as a business. The land is mostly upland grazing, it isn't in a conservation area of anything like that. There's a barn on the land with water and electricity and the place was previously run as a smallholding before my neighbour bought it earlier this year. The previous occupant/smallholder lived in a bungalow which has now been split from the land and is being rented out separately, so there is no residential property on the site of the smallholding.
We've decided we'd like to build the business up and we've done a bit of local market research. We've got a few projects on the go and everything seems to be going well. Although we don't live very far away, not living on site is now starting to be a problem - my other half is full time on the smallholding and he's spending most of his time there, and we've got serious concerns about security and the need to be there to provide round the clock care for the animals.
So we started to look into the possibility of a temporary dwelling on the site. Well, what a nightmare. We've been plunged into the world of PPS7, the national planning policy framework, business plans, function tests...we're now at a stage where we have our business plan and site plans and we're going to drop in and see the local planning authority. But we're receiving so much conflicting advice it's incredible.
For instance, I've got some people (including planning consultants) saying that there's a reasonable chance given that PPS7 is now obsolete and strictly speaking the planners don't have to apply the finance test. However, others are claiming that most planners are still applying PPS7, not that this would necessarily be an obstacle.
I made the mistake of putting something on a horsey forum I'm a member of and I'm now left feeling totally deflated. I've more or less been told that we don't have a chance, and that if I mention we've got horses the whole thing will be automatically blocked - this is totally the opposite of what one planning consultant said (namely that horses DO count now, whereas at one time they didn't - infact, he advised me to include liveries in the business plan!)
Even the planners themselves don't seem to have an agreed view on smallholdings and agricultural dwellings. The log cabin people are really targeting smallholders so someone MUST be getting permission somewhere; according to the horsey forum, no-one gets permission to build anything on agricultural land, ever.
Things that might be in our favour (or so we've been told) - one of us is full time; the land has previously been run as a smallholding but no longer has the dwelling that was attached to it; there's already an agricultural building on site with services to it; the site we're hoping to build on is currently rubble and not being used for anything; the dwelling will not be visible to anyone other than the farm on the top of the moor above us.
If anyone can offer any advice to stop my mind spinning I would be eternally grateful!
-
Lots of others will be along soon but from experience don't mention the horses they seem to put up an instant barrier with planners, livery means traffic means more council maintenance of roads etc you get the picture!? Play on the smallholding aspect lambs, goats,pigs, chucks that need attention 365 days of the year twice a day.
Given there was already a dwelling there previously and it was used as a smallholding you should be in with a chance, do you have kids that could go to a local school and swell numbers thats always a good card in areas of dwindling school populations,
best of luck. MAndy :pig:
-
Firstly, I would check the planning office for any details relating to the seperation of the bungalow that was sold away from the land. There may have had to be some planning permission (change of use, or something) at the time, and there may have been some stipulations made about not granting pp for another dwelling in respect of the same land. If so, you could save yourself a fortune by looking that up now.
The people with the real track record in helping genuine people set up home on their smallholding are Chapter 7. (No, not the American one :D) There's lots of good stuff available through their website (http://www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/) - they know what they're doing and they offer advice for free. (Start off by reading some of their publications, of course.)
-
Thanks Mandy - the horses thing is really interesting as a few consultants have told me that the tide is changing with horses now and the previous owner, apart from keeping sheep and pigs, actually ran a pony stud on the site. If they visit the site they will see the horses so there's not much mileage in me trying to avoid it, but in the business plan I've really pushed the high quality produce side of things.
We've been advised to put four liveries into the business plan, but two of these are actually our horses (with funds being provided from our other income) which is apparently OK?
The lane up to the farm is unadopted an it's actually in a bit of a mess so we'll need to sort that out ourselves. The council are definitely not interested.
All kids grown up I'm afraid so unfortunately I can't go down that route!
-
Thanks Sally, will look at that.
The bungalow and land were sold as separate lots but bought by the same person (our neighbour). He is renting them out as separate things. I don't think there's any stipulation of the type you mention as he said even before he bought it that he would support a tenant getting planning permission for a temporary dwelling. Not having any accommodation there would seriously restrict the usefulness of the land as we're finding it hard enough to get up there all the time and we don't live very far away. I'll go and see my neighbour today and see what he knows.
-
stud farms are treated differently from general leisure horse keeping in planning terms so that might explain the case you mention. However if you do benefit from getting planning cos of the stud there will generally be a restriction put on the property/land to restrict it to only being a stud.
The difficulty is really, if what you propose to do were freely possible ie get PP for a house on the basis of a few acres of land (which unless specialist is unlikely to really be economic or really require 24 hour on site presence) , then tens or hundreds of thousands would do it - would that be a good thing, Im not sure it would for the countryside.
I would look to try to rent the bungalow (which after all was part of the holding previously) or find a smallholding where there is already a residential element.
-
the horses thing is really interesting as a few consultants have told me that the tide is changing with horses now
All kids grown up I'm afraid so unfortunately I can't go down that route!
a lot depends where you are in the country........no kids here either but do know a few who have used that one quite successfully.
mandy :pig:
-
Previous owner did have liveries too - most of the business revolved around the liveries. I can't understand why I've been advised that liveries is the way to go (and this is by a firm of consultants who specialise in business plans for this sort of venture).
Moving into the bungalow is absolutely not an option as my daughter lives there with her partner and two young children!
I've also been told that the financial test is no longer mandatory since PPS7 was done away with. As 60% of families on small farms apparently benefit from income earned outside the smallholding business, I don't see why they should put so much emphasis on this providing the business is definitely operating as a smallholding and the whole thing is not being used as a back door to putting executive housing up with a view to selling at a profit.
I actually think that we might give up completely very soon as we can't carry on as we are. We really do need to be up there to make this thing work and if no-one is going to consider the need for that then we may as well throw in the towel now.
-
Just realised you are RENTING the land and daughter RENTS the nearby bungalow, think carefully before getting anything permanent done, there are lots of posts on TAS regarding landlords and hassle and changes, whatever you do will benefit your landlord in the long term NOT you and he can give you notice to get out when he pleases!
Tread carefully.
Mandy :pig:
-
Moving into the bungalow is absolutely not an option as my daughter lives there with her partner and two young children!
Look into putting up a static caravan as an extra bedroom for the bungalow. So long as you eat at least one meal a day in the bungalow I believe this is then lawful WITHOUT any planning permission.
No one is going to come check that you are having your brekky there.
Obviously make sure your daughter and family don't object!
-
The agreement is to buy the land as soon as possible but we'll only do this if we can get PP.
We have pretty watertight legal agreements re. the renting that protect both them and us, so I'm not too worried about that. The reason we did this is that they are long standing friends of ours and neither of us wanted to be in the awkward position of jeopordising the friendship because of a disagreement about the land.
The bungalow was purchased by the same people but was financed by a completely different means so nothing to do with the smallholding at all. Daughter has always lived in rented property and prefers to rent rather than buy, and as I have lost thousands and thousands of pounds over the past ten years through negative equity, property market crashes etc etc I think she has a good point.
Would still like to buy the smallholding and friend/landlord is very keen to sell it to us, but if we can't get PP then it's a no-go.
-
The bungalow is now on a completely separate piece of land that is nothing to do with the smallholding, so even if there was room for a caravan (which there isn't!) I don't think it would work. It's hard to explain without pictures/diagrams, but we would actually be looking to build the timber dwelling behind the barn and it wouldn't even be visible from the bungalow.
I don't really want to live in a static caravan full time, apart from anything else I don't think we'd have space for me to carry out my 'normal' business... the log cabin idea seems absolutely ideal but I'm beginning to feel increasingly hopeless about the whole thing. For every person who says it's a possibility there are two that say we haven't a chance. I think we'll probably sell the sheep and goats, give up the land and move our horses back down here. It's a pity as there is definitely a market for the stuff we wanted to produce. But we can't carry on for ever going up and down to the place, it's just impractical.
-
Until you actually apply for Planning Permission you can't know if you will get it. Pre-guessing the result is surely non-productive. The place sounds ideal for you and as you have animals there already it would be a shame to get rid of them before you know if that is going to be necessary.
Getting permissions and then building are some of the most stressful parts of life - it never goes smoothly and all you can do is keep looking towards once it's all finished.
Don't give up without a fight :sunshine:
-
When I bought my conservator the suppliers go t PP for me. Do log cabin people not do the same?
-
Thank you Fleecewife, this is a bit of a lifeline, I'm feeling very down about it at the moment to be honest.
I can see that the rules are there to stop the development of executive housing and no-one could be more in agreement with that principle than me. But this is a genuine stab at rural enterprise. There is very little local honey around here, or dairy goat products, and shops are being continuously asked for them. We are still being asked if we have any geese for Christmas, we could have easily sold 20 without any advertising at all!
But going up and down all the time is really impractical. And while I'm working long hours to keep this house going, it will seriously limit the amount we can invest into our smallholding business.
-
If the smallholding is genuinely viable in terms of profit then the council WILL be sympathetic but only if you can show it in terms of proper business plans and evidence. So I wouldnt give up - the issue will be in many cases than once on paper with all the costs properly accounted for, most smallholdings dont produce more than hobby money, if that.
The issue for the council is that unless a proposal ticks all the boxes, an agreement to allow new homes in the countryside then gives the executive homes wallahs a great lever for getting their PP for the tickytacky boxes we all hate.
-
Hi Doganjo, I think that the log cabin companies tend not to get involved as this sort of planning application is, typically, very complicated and relies very much on the view taken by the local planning authority. The company I phoned did give me some good advice but it was still down to us to get the plan together and do the research.
-
Until you actually apply for Planning Permission you can't know if you will get it. Pre-guessing the result is surely non-productive. The place sounds ideal for you and as you have animals there already it would be a shame to get rid of them before you know if that is going to be necessary.
Getting permissions and then building are some of the most stressful parts of life - it never goes smoothly and all you can do is keep looking towards once it's all finished.
Don't give up without a fight :sunshine:
Also, even if they turn you down the 1st time you can always re-apply.
Sometimes it is worth looking from all angles, I know someone who applied for permission 20 years ago, was refused but still lives there :innocent:
See if you can get a copy of 'field to farm' as it explains all the different ways you can do exactly what you are wanting to.
I have had the bad side of the enforcement officers, I had to rip down my static but I'm still here and fighting :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Is your landlord in support? How about the farmer who would be able to see your new dwelling? If you can get support (especially written) from him/her it would be fab, the councils don't like hassle. If you can show them there won't be any grief from neighbors that will be a giant tick towards them giving PP.
It shouldn't be like that perhaps, but it is ;)
-
http://www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/diy.html (http://www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/diy.html) although I am not sure if it's up to date. there's field to farm too, but you have to buy the book to access some parts of their forum. Good luck :wave:
-
If all else fails, we could all come round and duff up the planners ;D
-
If all else fails, we could all come round and duff up the planners ;D
I think I'm going to like this forum...
And yes, the landlord is very supportive of the plans.
The farm at the top of the hill consists of a stone farmhouse and about eight static caravans (I kid you not). Apparently, according to the locals they have never had permission for any of these, but I don't know. They've certainly been there for over five years. Can't see that they'd object but it may be worth a visit 'up the hill' (if we're brave enough!)
-
Welcome to the world of planning. I reckon that the reason you have received conflicting advice is that there is not one right answer.
Earlier this year we finished building our dream home, after owning the land for about 10 years. (Partly due to my working away a lot of that time)
The first scheme we put forward was thrown out, as was the appeal against the decision. This was after the local planning officer gave, what we thought was, a green light. Using a planning consultant was a good move though as he established that we had a certifcate of lawful use of a residential caravan on the site.
Using a local architect, who knew his way around the local planning pecularities, was also an advantage.
Although our circumstances are different, I can only echo Fleecewife's encouragement. Don't give up. Nothing succeeds like persistence.
My own advice on top of that would be not to get wound up about it. It will only damage your health. The dream will come true in the end.
Remember the old story of the two frogs who fell into the bowl of cream!
Pauljay
-
Remember the old story of the two frogs who fell into the bowl of cream!
I may regret this but I haven't heard that old story :eyelashes:
-
This tale can be dragged out as long and as theatrically as you like but briefly:
Two frogs somehow fell into a bowl of cream. 1st frog says to t'other "what shall we do?"
"Keep swimming" says 2nd frog.
So they swim and swim and swim until 1st frog says "That's it I'm tired. Can't do this any more " He/she stops swimming and sinks. End of frog.
2nd frog carries on swimming all that day and all that night and as dawn breaks again he finds himself/herself on the top of a block of butter; hops off and carries on living the frog dream.
-
I've just spent 4 years nearly and about £4000 getting planning in principle for my plot in Aberdeenshire - against unhelpful and objecting (or objectionable as my kids called them :innocent:) neighbours who used to be friends - when I lived there and owned most of the land in the hamlet. After three applications we finally got it. So take heart and hang on in there :fc: :thumbsup:
-
Getting planning is a very expensive, frustrating and time consuming procedure with no guarentees of success. It can take years. I would never ever do it on rented land no matter how well I got on with the landlord. You would be spending money to do nothing but increase the value of their land. Which makes no sense if you then wish to buy it. If you want to apply buy the land first. You will potentially be adding thousands onto the value if you are successful, which you will then have to find to buy it having already been out of pocket from the planning procedure.
-
We can't buy the land until we have planning permission for a temporary dwelling as we need to sell our current house to get the money to buy the land. So it's a bit Catch 22. But once we've got planning permission we can put this house on the market.
I'm so sick and tired of having to work 14 hour days because of crippling mortgage payments and crashing house prices that even the animals' barn is starting to look appealing!
-
Maybe you should just move in with the animals. :-J
I've not been in your position but it sounds horrific. I would keep trying though. Being persistent often wins through.
-
Just one question - does any ever get planning permission for a temporary dwelling without suffering high levels of stress, huge financial loss and massive amounts of time being wasted?
I don't think I've heard of one case where things have just been straightforward and the permission has been granted. Is the system geared to put people off applying?
-
In a word, Yes! ;D
It is not reasonable to have to go cap in hand for permission to live on the land you genuinely want to farm ( 'genuinely' being the important word) and it is not reasonable to force you to live in a mobile home while you see if a business is viable. The aim was to make it as difficult as possible. Now, with things being in such disarray, it might be a bit easier but I doubt it. You also guarantee that the neighbours will weigh in with vicious untruths about your personal shortcomings. >:(
Good luck. Don't take it all personally.
Katie
-
The planners mind set is also not made more positive by the 000s of (full time) farmers who, having the old farmhouse without a planning tie to the farm it belongs to (since it was built before they were used) , flog that off for £££££££ and then apply for PP for a new farmhouse saying that they have no farmhouse ! - and they do get away with it, the planners have little choice but to permit the new farmhouse (with a tie this time of course).
It just makes it harder for new entrants to get permission when people play the system.
-
Oh, yeah, farmers are the bad guys here alright ::)
I think not!
There are a plenty of folks trying to make a buck on this badwagon right now. (I can see the typo but decided it was better than the word I meant to type! :D)
- folks who buy bungalows with agricultural ties, for over the odds, then try to sell it for waaaayyy over the odds and fail, then use their failure to sell at this inflated price as evidence that there are no prospective purchasers around who comply with the restrictions of the tie, get the tie lifted - and guess what, agricultural workers can't afford to live local to their work any more, or to retire to a bunglalow with a little bit of land, near to the grandkids, which is all most retiring farmers want in the world :rant:
- folks who buy a plot of ground, and that book that tells you how to use an alpaca-based business to get planning permission to build a house there, buid the house then sell off the alpacas
to name just two that I know of.
As to farmers rebuilding farmhouses... farmers farm for generations, and repair and renew as a part of that. Old-fashioned farm buildings are no longer suitable for farming. If we demolish them we're historical vandals, if we redevelop them as holiday or fulltime accommodation we're in it for the money. Note that we're having to build modern sheds, and that money needs to come from somewhere...
Equally, old houses get to the stage where they need gutting and rebuilding. Our choices are to try to live and work from a caravan while the farmhouse is redeveloped, or do the same as we would with the old farm buildings. Sell off the outdated delapidated ones to people who will love to make a modern non-farming home out of them, and build a newer one that's more suited to the modern farming family. Again, we have to find the money for the rebuild, and it has to come from somewhere.
-
I didnt say 'farmers' as a generality are bad guys and neither has anyone else? - just that those who exploit the planning system, not because their house is unsuitable (in which case it would be completely fine) but simply for profit make it harder for others to get PP for a farmhouse in the first place. Including the people you express (correctly) sympathy for.
I lived in a caravan for a year while our farmhouse was renovated. Not sure it is that outrageous an idea, really? Quite normal for major renovation even in our exposed wild location.
If you saw the replacement houses built in these scenarios there is no way you would be able to describe them as either small, or bungalows......... Southfork would more readily spring to mind.... :-J
-
Uh, what you said wasn't far from it, llm. As of 2006, there were 152,000 full time farmers in the UK. So
The planners mind set is also not made more positive by the 000s of (full time) farmers who...
does sound rather like making a generalisation to me, yes!
And, although a grand building a la Southfork wouldn't be our choice, I actually don't see why a farmer shouldn't build a good-sized, imposing house for himself and family and, it would be hoped, the next 7, 8, 9 or more generations.
However, back on topic and off hobby-horses ;), what you're telling me is that farmers selling off old farmhouses and building new, more suitable ones is causing some problems in the planning system, which is penalising genuine people who want to live and work on their land.
So what could we propose as a change to the way pp is given to reduce that negative impact?
-
I am a little concerned .... if you get planning on the rented land and then go to buy it you will have to pay the value of land with planning which is likely to be a huge amount of money compared to buying the land (owner gains £1000's whilst you foot the bill for getting planning and have all the worry and hastle ... ). Would it not just be easier to find another piece of land with a dwellling already on it?
Or swap houses with daughter?
-
Is it possible to get PP on rented land?
-
Uh, what you said wasn't far from it, llm. As of 2006, there were 152,000 full time farmers in the UK. So
The planners mind set is also not made more positive by the 000s of (full time) farmers who...
does sound rather like making a generalisation to me, yes!
And, although a grand building a la Southfork wouldn't be our choice, I actually don't see why a farmer shouldn't build a good-sized, imposing house for himself and family and, it would be hoped, the next 7, 8, 9 or more generations.
However, back on topic and off hobby-horses ;) , what you're telling me is that farmers selling off old farmhouses and building new, more suitable ones is causing some problems in the planning system, which is penalising genuine people who want to live and work on their land.
So what could we propose as a change to the way pp is given to reduce that negative impact?
It wasnt intended to be a generalisation, as I have already explained. Im just concerned as planners here tear their hair out as they get complaints from non farmer residents about houses in this scenario popping up in the countryside and it makes them (I perceive) less willing to take the positive intentions of new farming entrants at face value and interpret the rules in their favour. ie its because I would like to see new young full time farmers (who dont necessarily have muggins turn at a family farm) be able to set up (including building a house) that the other issue is of any concern - it doesnt worry me re the houses themselves as we cant see any neighbours, we are in the middle of our land on top of a hill!
Im not sure how the planning system can helps but I suspect the issue if there is one is self limiting since all more recent farmhouses will normally have a tie and these replacement farmhouses will have a tie to the farm.
Im not anti farmer in any way :ALL of our friends here are farmers shepherds, and craftspeople and I spend all my time on our 40 acre holding. We are all pro farming here - you will just have to take my word for it as Im not sure what else I can say ???
-
Hmmm, some interesting considerations here...
The thing about the rented land being worth more if it has PP - we've looked into this and it's a bit more complicated than that. As the initial PP would only be for a timber structure and would be on the condition that we (and no-one else) are running that business, it appears that it wouldn't actually up the value of the land very much at all. If we moved off before the three years was up then the next occupants would have to start again with the PP application and business plan etc. But we do intend to buy the land as soon as the PP for the timber structure is given, ie, before PP for a permanent structure is given. If our neighbour/landlord decided to up the price, then yes, we would simply move off to somewhere else, leaving them with no income from either the rent or the sale.
Daughter's house is very tiny indeed - plus, she wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage on our current house. The whole mortgage thing is driving me crazy, what with negative equity and all that. I am well and truly fleeced.
-
But the three year business plan thing doesn't exist any more?
-
But the three year business plan thing doesn't exist any more?
Well, it shouldn't. But many LPAs are still applying the guidelines from PPS7 even though they really shouldn't.
-
Just one question - does any ever get planning permission for a temporary dwelling without suffering high levels of stress, huge financial loss and massive amounts of time being wasted?
I don't think I've heard of one case where things have just been straightforward and the permission has been granted. Is the system geared to put people off applying?
Yep I know one lady near us who applied and got a 5 year permission straight away :wave:
-
[/quote]
Yep I know one lady near us who applied and got a 5 year permission straight away :wave:
[/quote]
Blimey. That's encouraging. First one I've heard of!
-
A friend of mine has been sitting for 8 years with 0.7 of a person permission given for her 20 acres with a big barn already on it. How they work out .7 of a person I don't know.
-
Most of the time I feel like I'm only 0.5 of the person I should be, I'm so knackered!
-
Planning issues are so draining. We're about to put in for PP on our land. Having fought two bitter battles already - one for a mobile home and 3 years, one for a polytunnel (worse than for the mobile home! ::) ) at least we know what we're in for. It's horrible. You feel like a social pariah but hang on in there. We've one two, now going for the third. It's been a real eye-opener for me - I used to naively think that most people were nice!
By the way, don't bother with Field to Farm. It's out of date now.
-
With PPS7 having gone it's actually worse than ever because no-one really knows what view each LPA will take. Lots are applying the function and finance test, but some aren't.
I'm working away at the moment but OH tells me he is going to the planning 'drop in surgery' tomorrow. That should be interesting!
-
Good luck Bluejules, I hope things look a lot more encouraging after the meeting :fc: :fc: :fc: :fc: :fc:
-
Yup, good luck from me too :fc:
-
We are all pro farming here - you will just have to take my word for it as Im not sure what else I can say ???
:-* :hug:
-
:-* :hug:
:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :bouquet: :sunshine: :sunshine: :sunshine: :hshoe:
-
That made me ;D & :roflanim:, thanks llm! :thumbsup: :sunshine:
-
I think you could certainly fight the function test. A bit of sustainability in the plan might also help.
-
Thanks for the encouragement guys!
Well, OH has been to see the planning department today. They are applying both the function and finance test from PPS7.
The planning bloke thought we would find it difficult to meet the requirements of the finance test with just 9 acres, but the most important challenge is providing a 'watertight case' for needing to live on site.
The good news is that he said that the building itself would have very, very little impact on the surrounding area, so a design and access statement would be nothing more than a formality. So if we can get through the finance and function tests he said it wouldn't fail on design or situation.
Any advice on the function test? So far I'm saying that we need to be there to ensure that our animals require 24 hour care - but apparently there are animals that, in the eyes of planners, 'need' more round the clock care than others - is this correct? There is a really bad predator problem round there too (mostly foxes). We were actually going to get a couple of alpacas as part of the anti-fox strategy, but I worry that they'll think we're playing the alpaca card as a shortcut. Does anyone know of anyone who has had success with the function test? - if so, what case did they put forward?
-
... I dont know about Alpacas for the function test... but they are by no means fail safe on the fox front. A neighbour of ours has quite a few (they are in the planning process :innocent: , but they have 80 acres. They got the mobile home up about 6 months ago and are now in the 3 year functional/financial period) including crea and they have now given up on the chickens and turkeys - Mr Fox has had em all. 3 times. Interested to hear what people say about animals you need to live on site for... We have sheep pigs and chickens and you could definately do all that without living on the land, as long as it was reasonably close (is that part of the functional test - that there is no suitable housing within a reasonable distance?). Its a blimmin minefield isnt it - good luck :hug:
-
As far as my experience goes, Plannings 'concern' is usually either the visual element or the impact element. If you have services on site already and your daily water & sewage impact is light, you should argue this case. If you have no services actually on your land, you could consider an off-grid build. This might be a bit more left field than you might like to consider but have a search for 'Earthships'. They are stand alone buidlings with rainwater harvesting, renewable energy systems and on-site waste recycling and treatment. i.e. NO impact on the environment. They are not the easiest to get through the Plannning system but they are getting easier. It took me over a year but that was the first one in our LA area. There is a great one in Skerray up north and there is also a great bank of volunteers wanting to help build them.
Just a thought... :wave:
http://earthship.com/ (http://earthship.com/)
http://earthshipeurope.org (http://earthshipeurope.org)
-
Cheers Rare Breeds! The planners didn't seem too bothered about visuals or impact - there's already services to the barn and there's a septic tank too. The hardest thing, it seems, is going to be persuading them that we have to live on site. I'm still thinking about this one...
-
Alpacas?
-
I'm afraid the alpaca loophole has long been closed. Having said that, one farm did get approval recently BUT had first class fibre animals, a proper breeding programme and business plan, not like some applications I have seen with a few motley animals and no basic idea of how to make money from them. It's very, very hard to think of a niche business idea to make money from a few acres AND have a need to live there. My sympathies. :-\
-
Looks like it's a lost cause then?
There's definitely a local market for the stuff we're going to produce...it's showing that we need to be on site that's the problem. Obviously, we're worried about things like fire, pipes freezing, security, predators - but I don't know if any these things will make a difference.
The previous owner used to run it as a smallholding and lived on site in a bungalow, but the bungalow has now been split from the plot.
-
What are you producing?
No, burst pipes etc or even security aren't enough. Do you have a range of stock?
Don't give up. What about a planning agent. Expensive but may be worth it. They know how to approach the planners and often are ex-planning officers themselves.
-
Rare breed sheep/.lambs
Goat's milk products - including soap
Honey
Eggs
Geese
We'll also keep a few pigs.
Done some market research and there's a lot of interest.
We haven't actually submitted anything yet so it's not as if we've been turned down - I'm just being pessimistic!
The planning officer the other day seemed to think that a planning agent would be a waste of money as there's absolutely no problems with design and access, siting, impact, etc. It's just about living on site. People must have reasons for living on site? We;re just finding it very difficult with all the going to and fro...
-
Did you contact Chapter 7?
-
Surely if there was a building there before, planning would be fine to replace the previous building?
You could also consider speaking to a planning consultant. I know a couple down here in southern Scotland but not any up in your area.
Alternatively, contact your local MSP or councillor.
Never give up though! :excited:
-
Tried Sally, but no response yet.
I read some of the stuff on the site though and was fascinated by it - especially the 'move now, ask questions later' approach!
-
Rare Breeds - there is a large barn on the site where we keep the animals. We want to put the log cabin next to the barn. The previous owner's bungalow is actually on the other side of the lane and being rented out.
Planning people seemed to think we would actually improve the site by putting the building on it as it's a right mess at the moment, full of rubble and bits of old gates left by the previous owner. But they're still going to apply the function and finance tests from PPS7.
-
Planning Officers can and do apply whatever tests there are in law, but sometimes they can waive them, but also the case could go to the Planning Committee and they may go on a site visit. They can overturn any decision by a planning Officer, You can also go to appeal, not sure to whom in England but it's the Scottish Government here.
My case was helped considerably by a planning consultant even though it seemed cut and dried by h PO. He focussed he mind of the planning officer. Money well spent in my opinion. Even a short consultation for advice with one would probably calm you down.
-
I agree- agents can at least set you off in the right direction! What you're doing sounds good - but would it make enough money to fulfil the financial rubbish? What about training courses?
I think it's one in three cases get through on appeal. For the Appeal, you are not allowed to present any new information, so make sure you cover absolutely everything in your initial submission.
Don't give up before you start - you may as well have a go!
Katie
-
As far as my experience goes, Plannings 'concern' is usually either the visual element or the impact element. If you have services on site already and your daily water & sewage impact is light, you should argue this case. If you have no services actually on your land, you could consider an off-grid build. This might be a bit more left field than you might like to consider but have a search for 'Earthships'. They are stand alone buidlings with rainwater harvesting, renewable energy systems and on-site waste recycling and treatment. i.e. NO impact on the environment. They are not the easiest to get through the Plannning system but they are getting easier. It took me over a year but that was the first one in our LA area. There is a great one in Skerray up north and there is also a great bank of volunteers wanting to help build them.
Just a thought... :wave:
http://earthship.com/ (http://earthship.com/)
http://earthshipeurope.org (http://earthshipeurope.org)
Really interested to learn more about this (should i start a separate topic?) We'd like to build an earthship structure (probably start with a shed to get our skills in!!) but thought the UK had still got a downer on the use of tyres as a building material (Ive been following sporadically since the grand designs programme)... have I missed a positive ruling? Love to see pics or hear more about your experience? Love F xx
-
If looking at a low/no impact type dwelling you might want to look at these for loos - I love the look of them and also the fact that as wee and solids are separate at all stages, you arent ending up with lots of harmful liquid waste.
We are considering using it for the interim stage of a cottage renovation before it has the extension added which would be where the eventual more conventional bathrooms would be, and subsequently using it as a loo for the stables/barn so we dont have to 'run to the house!)
http://www.waterlesstoilets.co.uk/content/kazubaloo-kl1-0 (http://www.waterlesstoilets.co.uk/content/kazubaloo-kl1-0)
Tyres wise it is a bit grey area I think - horsey people get panicky too that their rubber tyre shred manege outdoor school surfaces will be deemed industrial waste as well! I would hope that given that the tyres are being given a permanent immoveable function, they would not count as waste in the same way as if they were piled up in a dump. Or is it the look of earthships that has been controversial, rather than the tyres?
-
Try looking at the Ecology building society as they offer great advise and can advise on PP and may give you some alternative ideas that just might work! :fc:
-
Here's a letter a friend got from the planners
Dear David xxxxxx[/size]Further to your enquiry dated 23rd October 2012.You are advised to submit an application for pre-application advice to discuss your proposals.
Please find below a link to the council's pre-application meetings page where you can download the relevant form.
http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planninginisl/plan_before/pre_app_advice/Pages/default.aspxKind regardsPlanning Enquiries
Environment & Regeneration
Islington Council
So you need to apply to have a meeting to discuss an application you haven't yet made! [/size]
-
Oh, tell me about it. ::) Time was you could phone up and have a 5 minute chat to determine whether you needed planning for something, now you have to go through a computerised process nearly as complicated as planning itself to ask a pre-planning application question... And this is in the taxpayer's interest how? All it means is no-one asks any questions, they just get straight into the planning application, thereby causing more work for the planning department... :idea: Oh! I get it! More work = safeguard jobs!!! Of course! Sir Humphrey is alive and well and clearly working in planning now...